I was idly wondering about how much money the WRU gave to the regions and its players in comparison to the IRFU.

It’s difficult to do an absolute comparison since different ownership systems are in place. Nonetheless, the Annual Reports do provide some details to give a sense of the picture in both unions.

Looking at this year's recently published WRU accounts,(Y/E June 2016), I noticed that total National Dual Contract costs came to £3.2m (to which the Regions contribute £1.2m). According to the Annual Report, the WRU is obliged to pay £2.1m towards NDCs, so any surplus is returned to the Regions (£100k in this year).

The accounts also say that the Direct Costs section in their accounts contain an additional £4.4m that is paid by the WRU towards player costs for test matches. These monies are separate from the allocations made to affiliated organisations which includes the Regions.

The Regions were allocated £19.3m (this includes competition income of £9.7m). Together with the £4.4m for test players, this would give a total of £23.7m (€30.336m at end April 2016 rates).This total does not include test management/coaching costs, which look like they are included under Direct Costs for Test Matches, but no specific figure is provided.

In comparison, IRFU accounts have Professional Game Costs schedule with a single sum for player and management costs. which include test match fees and allocations to provinces. This comes to €34.965m. This is an increase of €5m on the previous year to cover once-off Munster financial difficulties and giving each province an unbudgeted 250k each to cope with rising salary costs.

I'm not sure if the NDC costs paid by WRU of £2.1m (€2.667m) are included in the Regions allocation of £19.3m. If not, then the comparable figure for WRU contribution to player costs and regions costs would be €32.757m, not including management/coaching costs for Team Wales.

In summary, a possible overall difference of €2.143m - much of which may be covered in salaries for Wales’ Head Coach and his assistants.

You've excluded 'National Match Costs' of €2.5m from this analysis. You're ahead of me here, but why have you done that?

Note 2(d) of the WRU annual report clearly answers your question of whether the NDC contribution is within the £19.3m.

In short, you're comparing £19.3m with €37.6m and trying to make it equal. Why?

No, I'm not comparing those two figures The two figures you've cited not for the same things, hence I was looking to see if I could put a more accurate assessment of the funds and how they flow either to the regions or to the players in WRU, and the equivalent in IRFU.

Pot Hale wrote:No, I'm not comparing those two figures The two figures you've cited not for the same things, hence I was looking to see if I could put a more accurate assessment of the funds and how they flow either to the regions or to the players in WRU, and the equivalent in IRFU.

Yes, they are for the same things except you've excluded, as shown above, further IRFU expenditure from your analysis.

No 7&1/2 wrote:How long before a 'shuffle shuffle, ffs, look it up yourself' Munchkin?

Sorry for the late reply.

Look it up yourself, Munchkin.

You're the one spouting that there's evidence the Broadcasting revenue is equally split. So it's really up to you to prove it. Maybe you can't, and you're just talking horse dung. I did l look myself, and nothing obvious.

I see the WRU hand out loans to the Regions as well. Isn't that nice of them?

Already answered above, Munchie.

No it isn't. All you've done is throw a few figures around. Break it down for me. Show me exactly how your evidence proves the Regions broadcasting revenue is equally split?

Pot Hale wrote:In comparison, IRFU accounts have Professional Game Costs schedule with a single sum for player and management costs. which include test match fees and allocations to provinces. This comes to €34.965m.

What are the 'national match costs' of €2.5m that you've excluded from the above?

Pot Hale wrote:Can you explain what you mean by that, please? What two different European competitions?

ERC and EPRC.

Professional Competition Income for the IRFU was €10.5m. PRW income to the WRU was worth £9.7m.

Both get the same from Europe.

What currency conversion rate are you using?

I did actually take the time to outline my reasoning and analysis including the rates I used. Perhaps if you read it in full, you might find some of the answers you're looking for.

I'm aware that the split of basic European competition monies are the same for the period in question. However, progression in the tournament adds to these monies. These are paid to the Union. This is noted in previous Annual Reports. For example, in the IRFU 2014/15 Report, it states: "Provincial competition represents the amounts the Union receives from the bodies governing the Pro12 and the EPCR competitions. The decrease year on year of €0.6m is largely attributable to the presence of a significant amount of prize-money in 2013/14 which is significantly reduced in 2014/15 due to changes in the competition distribution model and to team performances."

In addition, the PRO12 figures which are also included in the Competition Income are not necessarily the same for both unions, given the amount of revenues are also linked to team performance, and there is a likelihood of different sharing of terrestrial TV revenues.

Last edited by Pot Hale on Mon 10 Oct 2016, 10:42 pm; edited 2 times in total

Pot Hale wrote:No, I'm not comparing those two figures The two figures you've cited not for the same things, hence I was looking to see if I could put a more accurate assessment of the funds and how they flow either to the regions or to the players in WRU, and the equivalent in IRFU.

Yes, they are for the same things except you've excluded, as shown above, further IRFU expenditure from your analysis.

National match costs are not in the £19.3m that is allocated to the Regions. Nor are they in the £4.4m that the WRU pays to the players directly for test matches.

They are itemised separately. So I left them out since they don't appear in the sums on either side.

You've excluded 'National Match Costs' of €2.5m from this analysis. You're ahead of me here, but why have you done that?

Note 2(d) of the WRU annual report clearly answers your question of whether the NDC contribution is within the £19.3m.

In short, you're comparing £19.3m with €37.6m and trying to make it equal. Why?

Sorry, you've also excluded €2.4m spent by the IRFU on academies.

And €2m spent on a high performance unit, whose comparable costs will be in the figure the WRU spend on the national team.

Ok. If you want to include these, no problem. But they're not relevant if you're trying to compare like with like.

The idea was to look at the IRFU's Player and Management Costs sum of €34m that has been regularly used over the last few years to indicate how much the provinces receive from the Union. So I wanted to analyse this more closely and see what it was made up of and how it compared. The Annual Report from 2014/15 explains what Professional Game Costs cover: "Professional game costs in Schedule 3 includes all of the operational, logistical and preparation costs for the matches of the National team. The most signifcant costs in this schedule are the Player and Management Costs which include the costs of the National management and player fees and bonuses together with the Union’s contribution to the cost of the four Provincial teams."

Thus the Pro Game Costs of €37.6m is not comparable with the £19.3m allocation to the Regions. I was seeking to compare the components of the Player and Management Costs with what the WRU spends on similar resources. That includes the £19.3m allocation plus the £4.4m on test players by the WRU. As you correctly point out, the NDC contribution is within the £19.3 allocation to the Regions. However, the costs of the national management team are not included in the WRU figures I've cited.

As a side note, the WRU Report states that the allocations to the Regions "cover all international player release and provide financial support for the four Regions in accordance with the Rugby Services Agreement (“RSA”) signed in August 2014."

Pot Hale wrote:Can you explain what you mean by that, please? What two different European competitions?

ERC and EPRC.

Professional Competition Income for the IRFU was €10.5m. PRW income to the WRU was worth £9.7m.

Both get the same from Europe.

What currency conversion rate are you using?

I did actually take the time to outline my reasoning and analysis including the rates I used. Perhaps if you read it in full, you might find some of the answers you're looking for.

I'm aware that the split of basic European competition monies are the same for the period in question. However, progression in the tournament adds to these monies. These are paid to the Union. This is noted in previous Annual Reports. For example, in the IRFU 2014/15 Report, it states: "Provincial competition represents the amounts the Union receives from the bodies governing the Pro12 and the EPCR competitions. The decrease year on year of €0.6m is largely attributable to the presence of a significant amount of prize-money in 2013/14 which is significantly reduced in 2014/15 due to changes in the competition distribution model and to team performances."

In addition, the PRO12 figures which are also included in the Competition Income are not necessarily the same for both unions, given the amount of revenues are also linked to team performance, and there is a likelihood of different sharing of terrestrial TV revenues.

I read it in full, hence I asked the questions, as you are not comparing like for like. You then went on to prove that.

I see that we've moved on to a 'likelihood of different sharing of terrestrial TV revenues' when, previously, you were adamant it was different.

Pot Hale wrote:No, I'm not comparing those two figures The two figures you've cited not for the same things, hence I was looking to see if I could put a more accurate assessment of the funds and how they flow either to the regions or to the players in WRU, and the equivalent in IRFU.

Yes, they are for the same things except you've excluded, as shown above, further IRFU expenditure from your analysis.

National match costs are not in the £19.3m that is allocated to the Regions. Nor are they in the £4.4m that the WRU pays to the players directly for test matches.

They are itemised separately. So I left them out since they don't appear in the sums on either side.

Are you noting that the 'national match costs' aren't the cost of paying players, which is included in the £4.4m? I've missed where it notes that. Please could you point me to the note explaining that, thanks.

Ok. If you want to include these, no problem. But they're not relevant if you're trying to compare like with like.

The idea was to look at the IRFU's Player and Management Costs sum of €34m that has been regularly used over the last few years to indicate how much the provinces receive from the Union. So I wanted to analyse this more closely and see what it was made up of and how it compared. The Annual Report from 2014/15 explains what Professional Game Costs cover: "Professional game costs in Schedule 3 includes all of the operational, logistical and preparation costs for the matches of the National team. The most signifcant costs in this schedule are the Player and Management Costs which include the costs of the National management and player fees and bonuses together with the Union’s contribution to the cost of the four Provincial teams."

Thus the Pro Game Costs of €37.6m is not comparable with the £19.3m allocation to the Regions. I was seeking to compare the components of the Player and Management Costs with what the WRU spends on similar resources. That includes the £19.3m allocation plus the £4.4m on test players by the WRU. As you correctly point out, the NDC contribution is within the £19.3 allocation to the Regions. However, the costs of the national management team are not included in the WRU figures I've cited.

As a side note, the WRU Report states that the allocations to the Regions "cover all international player release and provide financial support for the four Regions in accordance with the Rugby Services Agreement (“RSA”) signed in August 2014."

Sorry, but they are relevant as the figures noted separately in the IRFU report (and ignored by you) are included in the WRU figures you try to quote as a comparison. You're also quoting 2014/15 against 2015/16 when the costs were higher because of the World Cup.

The financial 'support' is to hit the targets of the RSA - including minimising non-Welsh qualified players.

The 2015/16 IRFU Annual Report notes "In total the Union’s costs have increased by c. €4.8m from €66.2m last year to €71m in 2015/16. The professional game costs in Schedule 3 includes all of the operational, logistical and preparation costs of the National team together with player and management costs. The decrease in match, tour and camp costs is due to no tour taking place in a Rugby World Cup year, operational savings and the different cost profile of warm-up matches. The increase of over €5m in player and management costs arises from the necessity to provide against operational amounts due from the Munster Branch in light of their current financial difficulties. In addition to this the Union has paid an additional unbudgeted amount of €250k to each Province to assist with the di culties being experienced by all in the player contracting market. Insurance costs also increased significantly over the year."

There is also €7.5m for "Elite player development is made up of funding for the four Provincial academies, the high performance unit and eight representative teams" which must be taken into account as PRW fund their own academies bar a payment of £150k each (so £600k in total) from the WRU.

So it's €37.6m plus a portion of €7.5m plus a portion of the €900k on 'Grounds', so let's call it €40m.

That's up against £19.3m plus a portion of £4.4m (exceptionally high because it is a RWC year, up from £1.9m the year previous and not all of that to PRW employees, let's not forget) which should be rounded down to £3m if you want like for like. You can chuck in the £4.3m on 'Elite Rugby' if you like.

That makes it €40m versus £26m. Even at your highest exchange rate of €1.4 to the £1, that makes a 10% difference in an exceptional year because Team Wales players get paid more than Team Ireland players.

Pot Hale wrote:Can you explain what you mean by that, please? What two different European competitions?

ERC and EPRC.

Professional Competition Income for the IRFU was €10.5m. PRW income to the WRU was worth £9.7m.

Both get the same from Europe.

What currency conversion rate are you using?

I did actually take the time to outline my reasoning and analysis including the rates I used. Perhaps if you read it in full, you might find some of the answers you're looking for.

I'm aware that the split of basic European competition monies are the same for the period in question. However, progression in the tournament adds to these monies. These are paid to the Union. This is noted in previous Annual Reports. For example, in the IRFU 2014/15 Report, it states: "Provincial competition represents the amounts the Union receives from the bodies governing the Pro12 and the EPCR competitions. The decrease year on year of €0.6m is largely attributable to the presence of a significant amount of prize-money in 2013/14 which is significantly reduced in 2014/15 due to changes in the competition distribution model and to team performances."

In addition, the PRO12 figures which are also included in the Competition Income are not necessarily the same for both unions, given the amount of revenues are also linked to team performance, and there is a likelihood of different sharing of terrestrial TV revenues.

I read it in full, hence I asked the questions, as you are not comparing like for like. You then went on to prove that.

I see that we've moved on to a 'likelihood of different sharing of terrestrial TV revenues' when, previously, you were adamant it was different.

You read it in full but still ask what exchange rate I used when I clearly outlined them.

Why do you claim that it's not comparing like with like? It's competition income from PRO 12 and European comps that we're talking about. The WRU receives more income for these than the IRFU over the last three years - between 2-3.5m. I'm wondering why that is when Irish provinces had better performances in both comps and should have earned more. Thus, the regions must be getting a greater share of TV monies. Substantially so.

However, you said that judging from WRU Annual Report, the regions dont get more of the terrestrial TV money. So what in the Report leads you to that conclusion given the actual monies they received?

Munchkin wrote:No it isn't. All you've done is throw a few figures around. Break it down for me. Show me exactly how your evidence proves the Regions broadcasting revenue is equally split?

Erm, the few figures are the breaking it down.

No, they aren't. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertion that the WRU Annual Report shows the Regions getting an equal split of the Regions broadcasting revenue. The fact is that the WRU report actually shows to the contrary.

Kid A/Chunky/Dai (your very close friend) and I, had this discussion 2 or 3 seasons ago, over on Scarlets Fever. I did the comparison between the Welsh and Irish annual reports to show that the Regions must be receiving the bigger share of their broadcasting revenue. The Regions were receiving more competition revenue than the Provinces, and the reason has to be that the Regions were taking a bigger slice of their broadcasting revenue than the Provinces.

You can dance around it all you want, Phil, but you have no evidence to support your claim, and the facts actually contradict you.

Last edited by Munchkin on Tue 11 Oct 2016, 12:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

Munchkin wrote:No it isn't. All you've done is throw a few figures around. Break it down for me. Show me exactly how your evidence proves the Regions broadcasting revenue is equally split?

Erm, the few figures are the breaking it down.

No, they aren't. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertion that the WRU Annual Report shows the Regions getting an equal split of the Regions broadcasting revenue. The fact is that the WRU report actually shows to the contrary.

Kid A/Chunky/Dai and I, had this discussion 2 or 3 seasons ago, over on Scarlets Fever. I did the comparison between the Welsh and Irish annual reports to show that the Regions must be receiving the bigger share of their broadcasting revenue. The Regions were receiving more competition revenue then the Provinces, and the reason has to be that the Regions were taking a bigger slice of their broadcasting revenue than the Provinces.

You can dance around it all you want, Phil, but you have no evidence to support your claim, and the facts actually contradict you.

That's interesting Munchkin. Are you a Welsh or Irish fan? Pardon me ignorance for not knowing.

Munchkin wrote:No it isn't. All you've done is throw a few figures around. Break it down for me. Show me exactly how your evidence proves the Regions broadcasting revenue is equally split?

Erm, the few figures are the breaking it down.

No, they aren't. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertion that the WRU Annual Report shows the Regions getting an equal split of the Regions broadcasting revenue. The fact is that the WRU report actually shows to the contrary.

Kid A/Chunky/Dai and I, had this discussion 2 or 3 seasons ago, over on Scarlets Fever. I did the comparison between the Welsh and Irish annual reports to show that the Regions must be receiving the bigger share of their broadcasting revenue. The Regions were receiving more competition revenue then the Provinces, and the reason has to be that the Regions were taking a bigger slice of their broadcasting revenue than the Provinces.

You can dance around it all you want, Phil, but you have no evidence to support your claim, and the facts actually contradict you.

That's interesting Munchkin. Are you a Welsh or Irish fan? Pardon me ignorance for not knowing.

Pot Hale wrote:You read it in full but still ask what exchange rate I used when I clearly outlined them.

Why do you claim that it's not comparing like with like? It's competition income from PRO 12 and European comps that we're talking about. The WRU receives more income for these than the IRFU over the last three years - between 2-3.5m. I'm wondering why that is when Irish provinces had better performances in both comps and should have earned more. Thus, the regions must be getting a greater share of TV monies. Substantially so.

However, you said that judging from WRU Annual Report, the regions dont get more of the terrestrial TV money. So what in the Report leads you to that conclusion given the actual monies they received?

The exchange rate question was asked to illuminate that you can't deal with them in the manner you did as you don't know the payment schedule.

You're not comparing like for like because the payment structure changed during the term you've falsely investigated.

You're also ignoring the income from the LV cup in your three year analysis. Income, of course, that completely disproves the findings you've tried to get to by using that arbitrary period.

Munchkin wrote:No, they aren't. You have failed to provide any evidence to support your assertion that the WRU Annual Report shows the Regions getting an equal split of the Regions broadcasting revenue. The fact is that the WRU report actually shows to the contrary.

Kid A/Chunky/Dai (your very close friend) and I, had this discussion 2 or 3 seasons ago, over on Scarlets Fever. I did the comparison between the Welsh and Irish annual reports to show that the Regions must be receiving the bigger share of their broadcasting revenue. The Regions were receiving more competition revenue than the Provinces, and the reason has to be that the Regions were taking a bigger slice of their broadcasting revenue than the Provinces.

You can dance around it all you want, Phil, but you have no evidence to support your claim, and the facts actually contradict you.

Where does the WRU report actually show the contrary?

PRW play in more competitions than the IRFU branches. Maybe you made the same mistake as Pot.

Sorry about that, old boy. And you delivered your post with such a nasty tone, only to have made a crucial error.

Great Britain covers Wales, Scotland and England, though granted the political situation there has left the door open to N Irish to be called British if they wish to be. You're not trying to stir I'm sure.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Great Britain covers Wales, Scotland and England, though granted the political situation there has left the door open to N Irish to be called British if they wish to be. You're not trying to stir I'm sure.

No, I just wrote British in the sense of the currency. Poorly worded by me, I can see that now.

Pot Hale wrote:You read it in full but still ask what exchange rate I used when I clearly outlined them.

Why do you claim that it's not comparing like with like? It's competition income from PRO 12 and European comps that we're talking about. The WRU receives more income for these than the IRFU over the last three years - between 2-3.5m. I'm wondering why that is when Irish provinces had better performances in both comps and should have earned more. Thus, the regions must be getting a greater share of TV monies. Substantially so.

However, you said that judging from WRU Annual Report, the regions dont get more of the terrestrial TV money. So what in the Report leads you to that conclusion given the actual monies they received?

The exchange rate question was asked to illuminate that you can't deal with them in the manner you did as you don't know the payment schedule.

You're not comparing like for like because the payment structure changed during the term you've falsely investigated.

You're also ignoring the income from the LV cup in your three year analysis. Income, of course, that completely disproves the findings you've tried to get to by using that arbitrary period.

I set out three different exchange rates in my comparisons. What exchange rate would you suggest should be used for the 3 years in question?

What payment structure changed during the period that means it isn't a like for like comparison?

What about income from the LV Cup? It's not included in the WRU figures on competition income. So it's irrelevant.

And why is the last three years which cover the new PRO12 TV deal with Sky, revised deal with terrestrial TV, and the new European comps arbitrary in your view?

Last edited by Pot Hale on Tue 11 Oct 2016, 7:48 pm; edited 1 time in total

So bigger stadium, more matches each year (1 extra played outside the World Rugby window). More TV revenue (all pro12 is split evenly except for BBC Wales/S4C tv money which WRU keep 70% of). A cheaper stadium with less to pay off. And has been argued back and forth above relatively comparable cash coming in rugby in each union. And the Regions get LV cash if they do well.

With there being potentially more cash floating around on the Welsh side of the scales, how do the Irish teams spend more on their players? And also, were does the extra cash in Wales go if it isn't put into their players?

The stadium repayment was the obvious differentiator used, but the MS cost less and had 10 years of repayments already put against it before LRoad brought a far larger debt figure onto the IRFU side of things.

Pot Hale wrote:The WRU Annual Report states that competition income is from PRO12 and European Cups. It doesn't mention LV Cup at all. If it's paid directly to clubs then this would explain why it's not included.

Do you accept the point that the WRU received more Competition Income in each of the last three years than the IRFU did?

It's only paid directly to clubs in England. All income into the Welsh game had to go through the WRU to meet the Barclays covenant. The LV money is in there.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:So bigger stadium, more matches each year (1 extra played outside the World Rugby window). More TV revenue (all pro12 is split evenly except for BBC Wales/S4C tv money which WRU keep 70% of). A cheaper stadium with less to pay off. And has been argued back and forth above relatively comparable cash coming in rugby in each union. And the Regions get LV cash if they do well.

With there being potentially more cash floating around on the Welsh side of the scales, how do the Irish teams spend more on their players? And also, were does the extra cash in Wales go if it isn't put into their players?

The stadium repayment was the obvious differentiator used, but the MS cost less and had 10 years of repayments already put against it before LRoad brought a far larger debt figure onto the IRFU side of things.

It struggles to add up, where does the extra cash in Wales go?

There is no indication at all that the WRU 'keep' 70% of the BBC Wales money. None. Neither is there any indication that the PS is 'cheaper'.

Pot Hale wrote:The WRU Annual Report states that competition income is from PRO12 and European Cups. It doesn't mention LV Cup at all. If it's paid directly to clubs then this would explain why it's not included.

Do you accept the point that the WRU received more Competition Income in each of the last three years than the IRFU did?

It's only paid directly to clubs in England. All income into the Welsh game had to go through the WRU to meet the Barclays covenant. The LV money is in there.

Once you add in the LV money, you can see why there is a disparity.

Ok - so you say the LV monies are included in the Competition Income.

And you agree there is a disparity. Do you accept that the WRU received more Competition Income than the IRFU did?

Phil: Judging by the WRU Annual Report released yesterday, PRW do not keep more of the money they earn via TV for the PrO'12.

Pot: They do.

Phil: Prove it.

Phil: All you have to do is look at the competition income and work out how much of it comes from where.

(Pot reads this last comment and decides to look at the competition income and work out how much of it comes from where.)

Pot: (Long post showing competition income revenues for both unions over last 3 years showing where it comes from - PRO12 and European comps - and showing a cumulative difference of £2-3.5m between revenues for the two Unions. He asks could the difference be different allocation of terrestrial TV monies?)

Phil: The most obvious thought is that you've compared two different European competitions to come to your conclusion. That's a glaring error.

Pot: Can you explain what you mean by that, please? What two different European competitions?

Phil: ERC and EPRC. Professional Competition Income for the IRFU was €10.5m. PRW income to the WRU was worth £9.7m. Both get the same from Europe. What currency conversion rate are you using?

Pot: I did actually take the time to outline my reasoning and analysis including the rates I used. Perhaps if you read it in full, you might find some of the answers you're looking for.

I'm aware that the split of basic European competition monies are the same for the period in question. However, progression in the tournament adds to these monies. These are paid to the Union. This is noted in previous Annual Reports. For example, in the IRFU 2014/15 Report, it states: "Provincial competition represents the amounts the Union receives from the bodies governing the Pro12 and the EPCR competitions. The decrease year on year of €0.6m is largely attributable to the presence of a significant amount of prize-money in 2013/14 which is significantly reduced in 2014/15 due to changes in the competition distribution model and to team performances."

In addition, the PRO12 figures which are also included in the Competition Income are not necessarily the same for both unions, given the amount of revenues are also linked to team performance, and there is a likelihood of different sharing of terrestrial TV revenues.

Phil: I read it in full, hence I asked the questions, as you are not comparing like for like. You then went on to prove that. I see that we've moved on to a 'likelihood of different sharing of terrestrial TV revenues' when, previously, you were adamant it was different.

Pot: You read it in full but still ask what exchange rate I used when I clearly outlined them?

Why do you claim that it's not comparing like with like? It's competition income from PRO 12 and European comps that we're talking about. The WRU receives more income for these than the IRFU over the last three years - between 2-3.5m. I'm wondering why that is when Irish provinces had better performances in both comps and should have earned more. Thus, the regions must be getting a greater share of TV monies. Substantially so.

However, you said that judging from WRU Annual Report, the regions don’t get more of the terrestrial TV money. So what in the Report leads you to that conclusion given the actual monies they received?

Phil: The exchange rate question was asked to illuminate that you can't deal with them in the manner you did as you don't know the payment schedule.

You're not comparing like for like because the payment structure changed during the term you've falsely investigated.

You're also ignoring the income from the LV cup in your three year analysis. Income, of course, that completely disproves the findings you've tried to get to by using that arbitrary period.

Pot: I set out three different exchange rates in my comparisons. What exchange rate would you suggest should be used for the 3 years in question?

What payment structure changed during the period that means it isn't a like for like comparison?

What about income from the LV Cup? It's not included in the WRU figures on competition income. So it's irrelevant.

And why is the last three years which cover the new PRO12 TV deal with Sky, revised deal with terrestrial TV, and the new European comps arbitrary in your view?

Phil: My point is clear: using three years is foolish. It doesn't offer any kind of comparison because of the issues of knock out game payments and the fact that PRW play in an extra competition.

Of course LV Cup income is in the WRU figures for three years you covered. Where else do you think the money from that competition is? PRW don't play in it for free.

Last year's figures would also have included a pay out for the NGD making the knock out stages of the Mickey Mouse Cup, to further skew the comparison figures when comparing year against year.The money from the LV in England is paid directly to the clubs based on games won, by the way.

Pot: The WRU Annual Report states that competition income is from PRO12 and European Cups. It doesn't mention LV Cup at all. If it's paid directly to clubs then this would explain why it's not included.

Do you accept the point that the WRU received more Competition Income in each of the last three years than the IRFU did?

Phil: It's only paid directly to clubs in England. All income into the Welsh game had to go through the WRU to meet the Barclays covenant. The LV money is in there.

Once you add in the LV money, you can see why there is a disparity.

Pot: Ok - so you say the LV monies are included in the Competition Income.

And you agree there is a disparity. Do you accept that the WRU received more Competition Income than the IRFU did?

Phil: ......

Last edited by Pot Hale on Tue 11 Oct 2016, 7:45 pm; edited 1 time in total

"Competition income represents amounts received from European Professional Club Rugby (“EPCR”), and Celtic Rugby Limited in consideration for the participation of teams nominated by the Group in the respective tournaments of those entities. To the extent that the nominated teams have participated in those tournaments there is, under the terms of the participation agreements with the nominated teams, an obligation on the Group to remit any competition income, less any costs incurred by the Group in respect of the competitions, to them."

WRU Annual Reports 2015 & 2016

"(iii) Acting as principal in respect of competition income

Assessing whether the Group acts as agent or principal in the receipt of competition incomes requires judgment. The Group receives revenue from the organisers of competitions in which the Regions participate, namely the Pro 12, the European Champions Cup and the European Challenge Cup. The net revenue is passed on to the Regions. The Group assessed the factors presented in the respective agreements with the Regions and the competition providers and concluded that its ability to establish the commercial returns and to perform its contractual commitment to determine the competition participants provided sufficient evidence that it is the principal in the transaction with the relevant competition provider."

Yep, Sterling work Pot. Nice to see another 606 myth put to bed. And then we have the evidence that the WRU act as Bank to the Regions. Good that they do, but maybe those that accused the IRFU as acting as a Bank for the Provinces (just one of the reasons it was all so unfair on the Regions ..... allegedly ) will now come to realise that as one finger points forward, three are pointing back.

Munchkin wrote:Yep, Sterling work Pot. Nice to see another 606 myth put to bed. And then we have the evidence that the WRU act as Bank to the Regions. Good that they do, but maybe those that accused the IRFU as acting as a Bank for the Provinces (just one of the reasons it was all so unfair on the Regions ..... allegedly ) will now come to realise that as one finger points forward, three are pointing back.

I'm by no means an expert on any of these matters. And not an accountant. But I do run businesses and I regularly transact sterling/euro amounts every month so have some idea about rates, etc.

I don't think that there was a myth per se. But it would certainly appear that there is a disparity in the amount of Competition income each Union receives from the same competitions. A fair expectation given the overall performances of the Irish provinces in PRO12 and in Europe would be that the IRFU would receive more money, not less, or even par amounts. In the figures above, you can see this occurred in one year 2012, where the amount of money received by the IRFU was greater than what WRU received.

The foreign exchange rates I've used are from historical forex sites which detail exchange rate on any given day or range of days and then gives you an average since we don't know when specific monies were transacted. The WRU accounts state that they have foreign exchange risks as part of their business operations and where necessary to mitigate that, they buy forward contracts which would give them a guaranteed rate (albeit lower than market rate). However, they say they had no risks in the last year, and it was Nil in 2015 as well. Thus it's likely they bought at best market rates where any forex was required.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Celtic Rugby has sterling accounts as part of its operation since it would have regular sterling suppliers such as BBC Wales, NI and Alba, so there may have been no need to convert at all. Hence I picked an average for the WRU financial year in which the monies arose.

I think it's over-reaching to say that the WRU acts as Bank to the Regions. And somewhat provocative.

As Phil referred earlier, the short-term loans issued by the WRU under their RCF (Revolving Credit Facility) to the Regions is for three fixed amounts over three years - 1.3m, 1.3m and 1.0m. The loans are then due to be paid back by the Regions in the following years.

It also serves as guarantor on small amounts that the Regions receive as loans e.g. in this year's accounts:

"The Company has guaranteed the performance of the four Regions in respect of loans that the Regions have received from Barclays Bank PLC. The amounts guaranteed are £0.5m (2015: nil)."

They're not huge amounts and the Report clearly references Barclays as the regions' bankers. They also are bankers for WRU.

Munchkin wrote:Yep, Sterling work Pot. Nice to see another 606 myth put to bed. And then we have the evidence that the WRU act as Bank to the Regions. Good that they do, but maybe those that accused the IRFU as acting as a Bank for the Provinces (just one of the reasons it was all so unfair on the Regions ..... allegedly ) will now come to realise that as one finger points forward, three are pointing back.

I'm by no means an expert on any of these matters. And not an accountant. But I do run businesses and I regularly transact sterling/euro amounts every month so have some idea about rates, etc.

I don't think that there was a myth per se. But it would certainly appear that there is a disparity in the amount of Competition income each Union receives from the same competitions. A fair expectation given the overall performances of the Irish provinces in PRO12 and in Europe would be that the IRFU would receive more money, not less, or even par amounts. In the figures above, you can see this occurred in one year 2012, where the amount of money received by the IRFU was greater than what WRU received.

The foreign exchange rates I've used are from historical forex sites which detail exchange rate on any given day or range of days and then gives you an average since we don't know when specific monies were transacted. The WRU accounts state that they have foreign exchange risks as part of their business operations and where necessary to mitigate that, they buy forward contracts which would give them a guaranteed rate (albeit lower than market rate). However, they say they had no risks in the last year, and it was Nil in 2015 as well. Thus it's likely they bought at best market rates where any forex was required.

Of course, it's entirely possible that Celtic Rugby has sterling accounts as part of its operation since it would have regular sterling suppliers such as BBC Wales, NI and Alba, so there may have been no need to convert at all. Hence I picked an average for the WRU financial year in which the monies arose.

I think it's over-reaching to say that the WRU acts as Bank to the Regions. And somewhat provocative.

As Phil referred earlier, the short-term loans issued by the WRU under their RCF (Revolving Credit Facility) to the Regions is for three fixed amounts over three years - 1.3m, 1.3m and 1.0m. The loans are then due to be paid back by the Regions in the following years.

It also serves as guarantor on small amounts that the Regions receive as loans e.g. in this year's accounts:

"The Company has guaranteed the performance of the four Regions in respect of loans that the Regions have received from Barclays Bank PLC. The amounts guaranteed are £0.5m (2015: nil)."

They're not huge amounts and the Report clearly references Barclays as the regions' bankers. They also are bankers for WRU.

The myth being that the Regions broadcasting revenue is split equally among the Welsh, Scottish and Irish. The WRU Bank was a dig at those who claim the same for the IRFU.

Good work, anyway. It takes time to search through things, and argue the different points made